Yo dude, most people have to work for someone.y0 dude, we here in America aren't forced to work for anyone.
How does the interstate commerce clause, as you understand it, apply to a local bar or restaurant?
Yo dude, most people have to work for someone.
No it's not. OHSA was passed, government health care was not (except for Medicare as the private insurance industry didn't want all those geezers who actually got sick).This is all about our future move to a more socialist country with GMAN mandated health care.
Don't like the laws, don't start a business. See how stupid your response is?right, the employer shouldn't be harassed with this. If you don't like that job, don't take it.
IIRC, the commerce clause has already been tested to apply to "local" businesses such as restaurants, hotels, stores, etc. back during the civil rights movement. Just because the majority of the clientele is local doesn't mean that all of them are. I know you probably don't agree with this sentiment, but that is how that clause has been interpreted for quite some time.
IIRC, the commerce clause has already been tested to apply to "local" businesses such as restaurants, hotels, stores, etc. back during the civil rights movement. Just because the majority of the clientele is local doesn't mean that all of them are. I know you probably don't agree with this sentiment, but that is how that clause has been interpreted for quite some time.
IMHO private businesses should be able to do whatever they want for the most part. Yes, having sex with kids inside should never be allowed...but if they wanted to ban anyone under 6 feet tall or required one to wear a certain outfit or make X amount of dollars a year, etc should be allowed.
If a private business wants to profit from allowing smoking to continue they should be able to.
I personally like no smoke, but where the fun is tends have it. Those people helping with that fun have their wants too.
This is all about our future move to a more socialist country with GMAN mandated health care.
DO NOT WANT!
The government has the ability to regulate lots of harmful things that private businesses might do to their employees or customers. There is no nationwide ban on smoking inside private facilities, only federal ones. All the other bans come from state and local level people deciding that they don't want it to be that way in their town. They certainly have the authority to do so, and it results in a policy that the vast majority of people like, smokers included.
If a business owner doesn't like it, he's free to go move his business somewhere else. I thought you guys were all about states and local control?
No, they are regulating workplace exposure to a known carcinogen. You are correct that restaurants/bars should not be singled out. The ban should apply to all workplaces.It doesn't matter what level of government is involved.. it's still unjust. "Harmful things", as I suspect you're referring to, are different from smoking. These absolute smoking bans are akin to a law that forces restaurant kitchens to be rigorously climate controlled so kitchen workers don't get too warm.
The stupidest thing about these bans is how they're aimed (by implication) at restaurants and bars/taverns; places that are extremely sensitive to the wants/desires of their customers and places in which competition for customers and, to a degree, employees is very high. Surely the people who have a problem with smoking are already going to and working at restaurants and bars that don't permit smoking... before any such ban was enforced.
I hate smoke and dislike smokers.
The idea is great but the reality is tyranny. I cannot support a ban on what people do on private property. There may be some conflict here with needing to protect the worker, but isn't that what Unions and individual choices are for?
Don't like the laws, don't start a business. See how stupid your response is?
It doesn't matter what level of government is involved.. it's still unjust. "Harmful things", as I suspect you're referring to, are different from smoking. These absolute smoking bans are akin to a law that forces restaurant kitchens to be rigorously climate controlled so kitchen workers don't get too warm.
The stupidest thing about these bans is how they're aimed (by implication) at restaurants and bars/taverns; places that are extremely sensitive to the wants/desires of their customers and places in which competition for customers and, to a degree, employees is very high. Surely the people who have a problem with smoking are already going to and working at restaurants and bars that don't permit smoking... before any such ban was enforced.
So you support segregation? After all it's private business deciding not to serve black people.
but if they wanted to ban anyone under 6 feet tall or required one to wear a certain outfit or make X amount of dollars a year, etc should be allowed.
Grow up little boy. The Act passed and has been held Constitutional by the courts. Congress and the President recognized that the employer/employee relationship is not symmetrical. Employers wield power over employees and with this power should come responsibility. Employers were failing and Congress acted to correct it.
Well quite frankly if a private business wanted to serve only blacks, only chinese, only japanese, etc...leave it on the business. If the public kills it off, so be it. If it thrives, so be it.
I think I mentioned this above in my other post
I just wanted to be absolutely sure of your position before I called you retarded. Even a cursory examination of history shows how laughably horrible the idea you have here is.
How so?
Like I said leave it to the businesses. If the PUBLIC doesn't buy then they will die.
Are you saying this is unfair?
No, what I'm saying is that in reality that has clearly shown itself to be a horrible idea, specifically in the case of segregation.
you will need to explain that from a free business approach.
y0 dude, we here in America aren't forced to work for anyone.